It is a bit frustrating in this rework as a surface ship without good AA, and sometimes even with AA build.

Suggestion: when planes enter into attack run, CV concealment will increase to the distance between planes and CV. So surface ship would have a chance to shoot back, if they have the range. When plane drop they payloads, the concealment is back to normal.

Share on other sites

There is a saying that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because some concessions need to be made in order to create a game from historical ships and scenarios doesn't mean that you should just ignore all real-world physics.

Hmm and no other ship type has their ability to attack stopped while on fire nor do other ship types take as much damage from fires. Yeah not even close to a realistic suggestion.

Well, with the rework it looks like fire duration on carriers is being reduced to 5 seconds, for 2% of their HP. That looks nice compared to the 9% on a cruiser/destroyer or 18% on a battleship.

I'm not sure if they can launch while on fire or not, though with 5s fire burns I guess they can wait if they do.

13 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

For torpedoes

For plenty of things. I don't know where the arbitrary cut-off should be.

1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

There is a saying that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because some concessions need to be made in order to create a game from historical ships and scenarios doesn't mean that you should just ignore all real-world physics.

It's already ignored in this case, launching a spotter plane makes your ship more obvious when it's firing. WG used to have different firing and concealment ranges, now they don't. Smoke has been changed. Radar sees through mountains is a common complaint.

If being open water stealth fired is bad, or being shot from smoke at close range, or having walls of 20km torpedoes thrown at you is all bad, then being attacked by some carrier 20km away behind a rock is bad and well, why not.

It is a bit frustrating in this rework as a surface ship without good AA, and sometimes even with AA build.

Suggestion: when planes enter into attack run, CV concealment will increase to the distance between planes and CV. So surface ship would have a chance to shoot back, if they have the range. When plane drop they payloads, the concealment is back to normal.

Fair? Not fair? Discussion.

And I know it is not based on real life.

Cheers

There is one thing CV's have against them that sort of compensates for gun bloom. Aircraft return automatically back to them in a straight line. You have a constant stream of locators going on that will lead you to the CV. In consideration of this, I think we can let the CV's have a break.

It is a bit frustrating in this rework as a surface ship without good AA, and sometimes even with AA build.

Suggestion: when planes enter into attack run, CV concealment will increase to the distance between planes and CV. So surface ship would have a chance to shoot back, if they have the range. When plane drop they payloads, the concealment is back to normal.

Fair? Not fair? Discussion.

And I know it is not based on real life.

Cheers

Well 1 think that is changing with 8.0 is concealment expert, that will now be a straight 10% bonus, not a bonus based on class, so take the Midway, she will likely have the detection of a Kurfurst.

I see your point, but you still get a better chance to dodge some of the damage from a CV than from incoming shells. And people who play together, say a group 4 will have better AA protection than someone who is off on their own. Like when you get a gun disabled, the higher the tier, the longer it takes to replace a plane in a squadron. At T10 it take easily a couple minutes to replace planes lost in a squadron. The only CV that can for lack of better term sneak attack is the Hak, with the 8km range torps. Planes get spotted, like you get spotted. Also if your CV is doing it's job, it should from time to time dropping fighters near groups of ships to help protect them.

It is a bit frustrating in this rework as a surface ship without good AA, and sometimes even with AA build.

Suggestion: when planes enter into attack run, CV concealment will increase to the distance between planes and CV. So surface ship would have a chance to shoot back, if they have the range. When plane drop they payloads, the concealment is back to normal.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why is there a gun bloom at all given secondary's or even primaries of most carriers is less than half the detection range! That range is only supposed to go to the maximum firing range of the guns fired, not add to the ships detection range!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There is one thing CV's have against them that sort of compensates for gun bloom. Aircraft return automatically back to them in a straight line. You have a constant stream of locators going on that will lead you to the CV. In consideration of this, I think we can let the CV's have a break.

Not to mention that since in the new system you can't use fighters to keep the opposing CV's planes on their side of the map, you pretty much get spotted constantly throughout the game when playing a CV.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, this is a weird suggestion. But i do get the point, CVs are frustrating to play against because you cant fight back, thye can just strike you over and over again wihtout any drawback. Other ships need to take some risks in order to attack other ships.

Well, with the rework it looks like fire duration on carriers is being reduced to 5 seconds, for 2% of their HP. That looks nice compared to the 9% on a cruiser/destroyer or 18% on a battleship.

I'm not sure if they can launch while on fire or not, though with 5s fire burns I guess they can wait if they do.

For plenty of things. I don't know where the arbitrary cut-off should be.

It's already ignored in this case, launching a spotter plane makes your ship more obvious when it's firing. WG used to have different firing and concealment ranges, now they don't. Smoke has been changed. Radar sees through mountains is a common complaint.

If being open water stealth fired is bad, or being shot from smoke at close range, or having walls of 20km torpedoes thrown at you is all bad, then being attacked by some carrier 20km away behind a rock is bad and well, why not.

It's not a serious proposition in the first place.

The most obvious is torpedo range and speed coupled by ship detection ranges; those are totally arcade. But the rest are watered down, QoL tinkered like radar and hydro through rocks.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, this is a weird suggestion. But i do get the point, CVs are frustrating to play against because you cant fight back, thye can just strike you over and over again wihtout any drawback. Other ships need to take some risks in order to attack other ships.

But i dont know, this would be be to arcade, even for a arcade game.

When your BB with 20km range shoots from that distance at my CL with 14km range, what risk are you taking?

Share on other sites

Right now with the island humping meta? Getting burned to the waterline. Its not like Cruisers sit in open water right now.

No, I'm talking 1 v 1, BB with 20km range engages CL with 14km range. There's no risk there for the BB at all. Let's use a different example. An Atlanta is parked behind an island it can shoot over but nobody else can shoot back at it and it's pummeling the hell out of a BB that is in range. What risk is there to the Atlanta? None. The point I'm trying to make is there are lots of scenarios where you can be attacked in this game with no immediate method of reprisal but everyone wants to cry about it when it's a CV doing it. I'd much rather have a CV attacking me than the Atlanta in the above situation. At least I can shoot the CV's planes down. All you can do against the Atlanta is try to get out of range and that's not always a safe option to pursue.

Quote

After the CV change though, ships hiding behind islands will get blasted. Non moving targets will be an easy delete for a CV.

I don't think CVs will be deleting anyone in the sense the word is currently used once the rework rolls around. The point the campers will be easier to kill however, is a valid one.